Re: What defines a "crackpot"?


"jcon" <cirejcon@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1138205752.185558.150180@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Androcles wrote:
> "jcon" <cirejcon@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1138142808.659777.319140@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Androcles wrote:
> > "jcon" <cirejcon@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > news:1138135434.875398.33190@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > Androcles wrote:
> > > "jcon" <cirejcon@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > > news:1138112546.570116.90170@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >
> > > Hexenmeister wrote:
> > > > "jcon" <cirejcon@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > > > news:1138044551.943804.99750@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > >
> > > > > Baez' list is a pretty good start:
> > > > > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
> > > >
> > > > Hahaha! The miserable crackpot Baez has a 37 point list, thanks for
> > > > reminding me.
> > > > Let's see now..
> > > > 38. 100 points for claiming to be a physicist who accepts
> > > > Einstein's
> > > > definition of time.
> > > >
> > > > 39. 1,000 points for claiming to be a mathematician who believes
> > > > 2AB/(t'A-tA) = c
> > > >
> > > > 40. 10,000 more points for claiming to be a Professor interested
> > > > in
> > > > mathematics and physics.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You might also read Martin Gardener's "Fads and Fallacies
> > > > > in the Name of Science". In the opening chapter, he
> > > > > goes to some length to explain how he chose the
> > > > > subjects for his book, and what distinquishes "crackpot"
> > > > > science from legitimate, yet "fringe", science. It should
> > > > > be noted that although the book is over 50 years old,
> > > > > time has not shown him wrong on *any* of his judgements.
> > > >
> > > > 8> Add five points to your crackpot index for "Gardner->Gardener"
> > > >
> > > > 8> Add five points to your crackpot index for "judgment->judgement".
> > > >
> > > > > The hallmark of the true crackpot is that combination of
> > > > > extreme arrogance and extreme ignorance that drives
> > > > > them to speak with seeming authority on subjects
> > > > > that they know nothing about.
> > > >
> > > > That's definitely you.
> > > >
> > > > > In most cases, this
> > > > > makes them easy to spot by anyone with even the
> > > > > least bit of knowledge in the area.
> > > >
> > > > Yep.
> > > >
> > > > >For example,
> > > > > when Henry Wilson
> > > >
> > > > 8> Add 2.5 points to your crackpot index for "Henri- Henry".
> > > >
> > > > > says things like "particles
> > > > > go faster than light in particle accelerators, but
> > > > > no one notices", it makes it very clear that he has
> > > > > no idea how particle accelerators work.
> > > >
> > > > And do you?
> > > >
> > > > > Or consider
> > > > > Ken Seto, who claims to have developed a new
> > > > > "theory of physics", and yet has repeatedly shown
> > > > > he can't do the simplest algebra.
> > > >
> > > > No relativist can.
> > > >
> > > > tau = (t-vx/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
> > > > tau = (t-uy/c²)/sqrt(1-u²/c²)
> > > > tau = (t-wz/c²)/sqrt(1-w²/c²)
> > > > xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
> > > > eta = (y-ut)/sqrt(1-u²/c²)
> > > > zeta= (z-wt)/sqrt(1-w²/c²)
> > > > If one is right they all are, if one is wrong they all are.
> > > > Carry three watches or do not move sideways or ride an elevator.
> > >
> > > I think you need to brush up on linear algebra...for starters.
> > >
> > > Why, isn't a B.A. good enough?
> > >
> > >
> >
> > It would be, if it were in math or physics, which it obviously
> > isn't.
> >
> > Just the sort of erudite answer I was expecting.
> > I think you need to brush up on counting on your fingers ... for
> > starters.
> > Why don't you just *** off, you ignorant ***. You can't defeat me in a
> > flame war and you OBVIOUSLY have no mathematical skills whatsoever.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Apologies to Martin Gardner
> > >
> > > "judgement" is an acceptable variant of "judgment" (buy a dictionary).
> > >
> > > Who on earth cares how Wilson spells his name!?!? Do you think
> > > "Henri" is less of a kook than "Henry"?
> > >
> > > Nevertheless, you seem to have far more aptitude for spell checking
> > > than math. Perhaps you've found a calling.
> > >
> > > -jc
> > > Perhaps you are fucking idiot.
> >
> > Just the sort of erudite response I was expecting.
> >
> > Erudite? This is erudite:
> >
> > You are still a snipping, arrogant, illiterate, innumerate, illogical,
> > *** without a scrap of logic in you, you whining little toad.
> > You don't have an inkling about mathematics or physics
> > and live in the vain hope some moron will think you are clever,
> > Mr SmartArse who pretends he understands relativity and
> > doesn't have a clue how to synchronize his watch to Cassini
> > time.
> > Modern physics:
> > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Synchronize/Synchronize.htm
> >
> > Hey dumb***! Do you know how to move sideways or up?
> > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/how_to3.jpg
> >
> > tau = (t-vx/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
> > tau = (t-uy/c²)/sqrt(1-u²/c²)
> > tau = (t-wz/c²)/sqrt(1-w²/c²)
> > xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
> > eta = (y-ut)/sqrt(1-u²/c²)
> > zeta= (z-wt)/sqrt(1-w²/c²)
> >
> > Right or wrong, dumb***?
>
> Equations are seldom right or wrong if you don't define your terms.
>
> Nevertheless, it looks like you're trying to generalize the
> Lorentz transformation
>
> WOW! A glimmer of intelligence.
> You really catch on quick, go fucking easy, you might overload
> your neuron.
>
>
>
> for motion in one direction to
> arbitrary motion in three dimensions, but it's not that simple,
>
> "Everything should be as simple as possible, but not simpler" - Einstein.
>

The form I gave you was the simplest, general, form. I apologize if it
was
too hard for you.

You can always *** off, you insulting ***. What you will never be
able to do is outwit me or out-insult me, ***.




>
> because it's a nonlinear function of velocity, so
> the short answer is "wrong"...dumb***.
>
> Ok, so we are done.
> tau = (t-vx/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
> xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
> is wrong.
> Androcles.
>
>

No, it's right for motion along the x axis.

Fucking idiot. Spacecraft always go up, that's the z-axis.



Substitute y or z and
it's right for motion along any, single, axis. This is well
specified in any derivation of this formula, including the
original paper. It is not, nor is it ever claimed to be,
valid for motion in an arbitrary direction.

Nice one. That's a keeper.
[The cuckoo transformations are] "not, nor is it ever claimed to be,
valid for motion in an arbitrary direction." -- jcon the drooling con
artist.



Pretty much all equations are "wrong", if you use them
incorrectly, as you have done.

Yep. That goes for 2AB/(t'A-tA) = c, as Einstein did,
and
½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
the last containing 1/2, a number and not an algebraic term.
The correct form that should replace the 1/2 is (t1-t0)/(t2-t0).
The form I'm giving you is the simplest, general, form. I do not
apologize if it is too hard for you, you are a phuckwit that wouldn't
understand it anyway.
I think you need to brush up on counting on your fingers ... for starters.
Why don't you just *** off, you ignorant ***. You can't defeat me in a
flame war and you OBVIOUSLY have no mathematical skills whatsoever.



> The derivation is the generalized Lorentz tranformation is
> usually left as an exercise, but since that would be *way*
> too hard for you, you can find it in chapter 11 of Jackson
> (p. 541 in the second edition), or on page 4 of
> http://www.physics.byu.edu/faculty/rees/123/Relativity/3.pdf
>
> Hey arsehole! Who the *** is Jackson? I'm referring to Einstein's
> relativity, not Jackson's.
> http://www.physics.utoledo.edu/~ljc/speciaal.html
>

Thank you for proving my point. Did you ever bother to actually
read the paper? In particular:

"Es werde nun dem Anfangspunkte des einen der beiden Systeme
(k) eine (konstante) Geschwindigkeit v in Richtung der wachsenden
x des anderen, ruhenden Systems (K) erteilt, welche sich auch
den Koordinatenachsen, dem betreffenden Maßstabe sowie den Uhren
mitteilen möge."

That sounds pretty clear to me. What part didn't you understand?

The motion along the x-axis is arbitrary.
[The cuckoo transformations are] "not, nor is it ever claimed to be,
valid for motion in an arbitrary direction." -- jcon the drooling con
artist.
Which part of 'arbitrary' did you not understand, you self-contradictory
shithead? For that matter, which part of 'shithead' did you not understand?


For simplicity, Einstein considered a specific direction of
motion (along the x axis). He was assuming a certain level
of mathematical competency in his audience; namely, the
ability to rotate this transformation in to an arbitrary frame,
as needed.

He assumes 2AB/(t'A-tA) = c, too.

Wir setzen noch der Erfahrung gemäß fest, daß die Größe

2AB/(t'A-tA) = c
eine universelle Konstante (die Lichtgeschwindigkeit im leeren Raume) sei.
He isn't mathematically competent. Neither are you.



This is pretty straightforward for anyone with a rudimentary
knowledge of linear algebra, but since it's apparently beyond
you, I showed you the answer.

You are an insulting ***. A phuckwit of the first order.

If you can find someone who
knows how to do algebra, he or she can demonstrate to
you that the general transformation reduces to the
simplier form for motion directly along one of the axes.

Do you know anyone who can do algebra who can maybe
walk you through it?

Not you, that's for sure. You are so incompetent you believe velocity
means "The Hobbit, or There and Back Again".

While we're at it, do you know anyone who knows how to use
a newreader properly? You can't seem to work out that
whole quote thing properly.

You are such a moron you can't figure out what the half is doing in

0.5[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))

Of course, you don't really care about the right answer,
you just want desperately to sound clever. Unfortunately,
that will be difficult, because you're not clever, at least when
it comes to math and science.
Androcles.



-jc

> Of course, you don't really care about the right answer,
> you just want desperately to sound clever. Unfortunately,
> that will be difficult, because you're not clever, at least when
> it comes to math and science.
>
> You must be using a mirror.
>
> Again, maybe you should stick to spell checking.
>
> Maybe you should *** off, troll, before I crucify you for the dumkopf
> *** you are. I get my data straight from the horse's mouth.
> Jackson, indeed! The fuckin' tail wagging the horse's arse.
> Androcles.


.

Quantcast